Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Our objective was to assess the performance of machine learning methods to predict post-operative delirium using a prospective clinical cohort. Methods We analyzed data from an observational cohort study of 560 older adults (≥ 70 years) without dementia undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery. Post-operative delirium was determined by the Confusion Assessment Method supplemented by a medical chart review (N = 134, 24%). Five machine learning algorithms and a standard stepwise logistic regression model were developed in a training sample (80% of participants) and evaluated in the remaining hold-out testing sample. We evaluated three overlapping feature sets, restricted to variables that are readily available or minimally burdensome to collect in clinical settings, including interview and medical record data. A large feature set included 71 potential predictors. A smaller set of 18 features was selected by an expert panel using a consensus process, and this smaller feature set was considered with and without a measure of pre-operative mental status. Results The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was higher in the large feature set conditions (range of AUC, 0.62-0.71 across algorithms) versus the selected feature set conditions (AUC range, 0.53-0.57). The restricted feature set with mental status had intermediate AUC values (range, 0.53-0.68). In the full feature set condition, algorithms such as gradient boosting, cross-validated logistic regression, and neural network (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.83) were comparable with a model developed using traditional stepwise logistic regression (AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82). Calibration for all models and feature sets was poor. Conclusions We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. Delirium proved to be a phenotype that was difficult to predict with appreciable accuracy.

Key findings

Why it matters

In 560 older surgical patients without dementia, machine learning models predicted post-operative delirium with area-under-the-curve values of 0.62 to 0.71 using a large feature set. This concerns delirium after surgery, not treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 65/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 4 of 7; Citations per year 3 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 2 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 3 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 62 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 65 of 100. Total 65 of 100.62 of the 96 points we could judge = 65 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 62 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 65 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of general internal medicine)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 Journal of General Internal Medicine: journal h-index 283 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 134 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 4 / 7 Cited 62 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 3 / 5 8.9 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 3.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 2 / 6 Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 35 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Katherine Tasker holds only 3 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record 3 / 3 Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 9 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33078300)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 62 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 62 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 65 out of 100.
Total 65 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Racine, A. M., Tommet, D., D'Aquila, M. L., Fong, T. G., Gou, Y., Tabloski, P. A., et al. (2021). Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients. Journal of general internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7

Vancouver

Racine AM, Tommet D, D'Aquila ML, Fong TG, Gou Y, Tabloski PA, et al. Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients. Journal of general internal medicine. 2021. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7. PMID: 33078300.

BibTeX

@article{racine2021-33078300,
  author  = {Racine, A. M. and Tommet, D. and D'Aquila, M. L. and Fong, T. G. and Gou, Y. and Tabloski, P. A. and Metzger, E. D. and Hshieh, T. T. and others},
  title   = {{Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients}},
  journal = {Journal of general internal medicine},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7},
  pmid    = {33078300},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →